Cabaal wrote: » lets face it, if the catholic church had its way we'd be back to mother and baby homes and no abortions for rape, incest or suicide risk cases...sure you can always tie the women to a bed.
Cabaal wrote: » wasn't the same claim trotted out about the marriage ref back in 2015?
end of the road wrote: » there was some of that, yes . however, gay people getting married harms nobody, and therefore there was no argument against allowing gay people to get married.
the repeal the 8th referendum is different however, repealing the 8th will likely allow the killing of the unborn in this country,
where a large number of people disagree with the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances. so i'd suggest that what happened in the marriage equality referendum isn't really relevant this time.
antiskeptic wrote: » I recall you saying that all these people who didn't 'repent' were 'doing fine'.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » You talking to me? If so the only claim I made is that I'm not aware of any evidence that there is anything after death other than being dead. I hardly need to "support" that as there is no evidence to the contrary is there?
end of the road wrote: » just like the majority of people could see the pro-choice message for what it is? after all, there are a huge amount of dogmatic on the pro-choice side
end of the road wrote: » more so then the small minority of dogmatic within the already small religious section of the pro-life side.
end of the road wrote: » by the way, clinton actually did win the people's vote by a decent majority, but lost the electoral college vote. however, that's for another thread.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » One person? There's an army of dogmatic people who just need to be left rant on so the majority of people can see them and their message for what it is. I didn't claim owenbaloney was alone did I? I actually said:- The more ownenbaloney types there are the better as far as I'm concerned, you couldn't buy that type of help. If it is to be repealed it will be because people debated the issue and made and informed choice. Some people have dogmatic reasons to defend the 8th but within that cohort some will be open to being convinced of it's merit and be convinced by discussions they participate in or observe just like this one. It's an elephant of a task all right but just like eating an elephant you just have to do it one bite (or in this case one person) at a time. We've already established (well the reigning uber christian within the group owenbaloney has confirmed from his/her deep base of knowledge on the matter) that christians who vote for unlimited abortion but then genuinely repent will be forgiven and invited into the kingdom ever after etc etc so that at least opens the door to some christians who may otherwise have been afraid of gods wrath and unwillingness to forgive them if they vote in favour of abortion but then genuinely repent. For that I am eternally (well until I die anyway) grateful to owenbaloney You don't lease out that crystal ball be any chance? Last year my one thought Clinton would win the US presidency by a fair majority and look what happened!! I could seriously use a good crystal ball for Cheltenham in a few weeks time.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » What about the sins of sodomy?
end of the road wrote: there was some of that, yes . however, gay people getting married harms nobody, and therefore there was no argument against allowing gay people to get married. the repeal the 8th referendum is different however, repealing the 8th will likely allow the killing of the unborn in this country, where a large number of people disagree with the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances. so i'd suggest that what happened in the marriage equality referendum isn't really relevant this time.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » I'm finished talking to you. Goodbye
Cabaal wrote: » wasn't the same claim trotted out about the marriage ref back in 2015? It won't pass or if it will pass it'll be by a tiny amount, cause after all nobody liked the idea of those gays and lesbians getting married and every child deserves and mother and rather (which had zip all to do with it). Or so was claimed by so many on the No side time and time again.
end of the road wrote: » the 8th won't be repealed because of a poster on boards. sorry to disappoint you.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » People like you will actually help win the referendum argument for repealing the 8th just as similar dogma shone a light on why the divorce and marriage equality referendums should be approved. Please do carry on, you're doing a great job.
end of the road wrote: » if it is to be repealed it will be via a very very small majority as there is a large number of people, some who are religious and others not, who disagree with abortion on demand.
end of the road wrote: » the 8th won't be repealed because of a poster on boards. sorry to disappoint you. if it is to be repealed it will be via a very very small majority as there is a large number of people, some who are religious and others not, who disagree with abortion on demand.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: People like you will actually help win the referendum argument for repealing the 8th just as similar dogma shone a light on why the divorce and marriage equality referendums should be approved.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: Your repetitive dogmatic nonsense duress nothing to progress your pro life argument, all it does is highlight how intransigent and stuck in the past you are.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: Please do carry on, you're doing a great job.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Your repetitive dogmatic nonsense duress nothing to progress your pro life argument, all it does is highlight how intransigent and stuck in the past you are. People like you will actually help win the referendum argument for repealing the 8th just as similar dogma shone a light on why the divorce and marriage equality referendums should be approved. Please do carry on, you're doing a great job.
Nick Park wrote: » It's reasonable and natural for parents to share their religious belief (or lack of such belief) with their children. Anyone who labels that as 'child abuse' is, in my opinion, an intolerant bigot and a drama queen to boot.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Nick Park's assertion that in addition to voting against permitting abortion on the grounds that it was child abuse he would also vote for anything else which reduced child abuse in society
antiskeptic wrote: » You made a claim that seemed unbackupable. You don't back it up by asking another to demonstrate a contrary view. Your claim. You support it. Is the way things go...
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Serious question which may be viewed by the more dogmatic posters as inflammatory but I can only promise it's not:- Would you support a call for legislation which outlawed the indoctrination of children into religion before they are mature enough to make their own decision on what they want to believe in? We protect children from all kinds of influences which they are not mature enough to decide for themselves but we somehow feel it's ok for them to be exposed to a constant barrage via christian schools and mass on Sunday etc which tells them that they are born sinners and unless they repent they will feel the wrath of god and spent eternity in hell blah blah blah. If children were exposed to such messages in an any other context society would be up in arms about child abuse but when the label "religion" is applied to it apparently it's fine. What do you think?
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Has there ever been any evidence from beyond the grave of anything other than you're dead? Bill Burr eloquently puts it as follows:- <snip> Edit: Apologies to anyone who was offended by the swear word in the original version of this which has now been removed.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Three things:- 1. I was responding to an issue Nick Park raised. 2. Many posters but particularly J C and owenybaloney seem to be on a mission to promote religious dogma here and warning us all we'll burn in hell if we don't repent blah blah blah which seems further removed from the issue of abortion than my response to Nick Park's assertion that in addition to voting against permitting abortion on the grounds that it was child abuse he would also vote for anything else which reduced child abuse in society so I therefore asked him a logical follow up question relating to whether he agrees that the indoctrination of children is, almost uniquely in society, one of the last bastions of permitted child abuse which should be legislated against. 3. My reference was not exclusively to the catholic indoctrination of children. To make such a singular point would be silly but for clarity let me assert that the banning of childhood indoctrination into religion should not be limited to catholics but should apply to all religions. Why can't religions wait until kids are old enough to make up their own minds?
NaFirinne wrote: » Do you realize that without Christians, civilization as we know it would not have the current education it has?
NaFirinne wrote: » Educating children about God is not abuse.
NaFirinne wrote: » The primary educator for any Child must be the parent as such educating them physically, mentally and spiritually is are the basics.
NaFirinne wrote: » The world has always tried to destroy Christianity - through banning christian education - banning the right to worship - to torturing and killing Christians.
NaFirinne wrote: » Though many times society have come to the brink of extinction it always falls to small group following God to bring it back.
NaFirinne wrote: » 1.7 million unborn babies fetuses slaughtered aborted so far this year - People will have a lot to answer for following after such an evil.
NaFirinne wrote: » Do you realize that without Christians, civilization as we know it would not have the current education it has? .
Though many times society have come to the brink of extinction it always falls to small group following God to bring it back.
Educating children about God is not abuse.
NaFirinne wrote: » If you say you have faith in someone - you already know they exist.
NaFirinne wrote: » I think your drifting far from the topic, if you want to discuss catholic education of children which you seem to be referring too. I'm sure there are other threads on that or just create your own. This is about abortion and how can someone be a christian and still support abortion.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » Animals don't have souls such as humans. But they enter Heaven because Christ loves them.
Nick Park wrote: » So I will vote against unlimited abortion for the same reason that I would vote against legalised slavery or people trafficking, would vote against the abuse or exploitation of children, and would vote against any infringement of people's rights to exercise freedom of religion or to restrict their freedom to reject religion.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » People who blindly believe things never need evidence Delirium. It's a fundamental enabler for why suicide bombers do what they do.
